Evaluates urolithin A formulation's impact on ovarian function, suggesting potential therapeutic benefits.
Cyclophosphamide (CTX)-induced premature ovarian failure (POF) is characterized by disruption of the follicular microenvironment, granulosa-cell loss, endocrine imbalance, and oxidative-inflammatory injury. Here, we evaluated two multi-bioactive formulations developed to enhance ovarian stress resilience: a base formulation containing coenzyme Q10, calcium L-5-methyltetrahydrofolate, and Vitex agnus-castus extract (Base), and a urolithin A-enriched formulation (Base + U). Using a CTX-induced female C57BL/6 mouse model, we integrated phenotypic, histological, endocrine, oxidative-inflammatory, and transcriptional readouts to assess efficacy and mechanistic consistency. CTX markedly reduced ovarian index, disrupted estrous cyclicity, shifted follicle development toward atresia, increased granulosa-cell apoptosis, and caused endocrine dysregulation, including decreased anti-Müllerian hormone and estradiol and increased GnRH, FSH, and LH. CoQ10, Base, and Base + U each partially alleviated these abnormalities, improving ovarian index and coat condition, showing a trend toward improved follicular distribution, and normalizing hormone profiles. CTX also induced an ovarian oxidative-inflammatory shift, as reflected by decreased GSH-Px, increased MDA, and elevated IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α, all of which were attenuated by the interventions. Notably, Base + U more effectively reduced lipid peroxidation and TNF-α than Base alone. Consistently, ovarian transcripts related to follicle responsiveness and steroid regulation, including Fshr, Esr1, and Hsd17b2, were restored, whereas hypothalamic qRT-PCR analysis did not reveal robust transcriptional alterations within the intervention window. These findings suggest that the urolithin A-enhanced formulation partially alleviates CTX-induced ovarian dysfunction by suppressing oxidative-inflammatory stress and preserving granulosa-cell and follicle fate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: